Deep learning and machine vision for food processing: A survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quality and safety of food is an important issue to the whole society, since it is at the basis of human health, social development and stability. Ensuring food quality and safety is a complex process, and all stages of food processing must be considered, from cultivating, harvesting and storage to preparation and consumption. However, these processes are often labour-intensive. Nowadays, the development of machine vision can greatly assist researchers and industries in improving the efficiency of food processing. As a result, machine vision has been widely used in all aspects of food processing. At the same time, image processing is an important component of machine vision. Image processing can take advantage of machine learning and deep learning models to effectively identify the type and quality of food. Subsequently, follow-up design in the machine vision system can address tasks such as food grading, detecting locations of defective spots or foreign objects, and removing impurities. In this paper, we provide an overview on the traditional machine learning and deep learning methods, as well as the machine vision techniques that can be applied to the field of food processing. We present the current approaches and challenges, and the future trends.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it